S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #1

Viktor wrote:- able to defeat a goals flying 3000m/s at 150km

That would correspond to a target flying at ~ Mach 9 ( I am assuming this is the 40N6 missile )

But we know 48N6 has been advertised as capable of intercepting target flying at 4800 km/sec ( Mach 14 ) at 30 Km.

So as the missile goes higher to intercept does it reduces the ability intercept target at higher speed ?

100 km above would be space so not much of gravity acting on SAM so it does not need massive thrust to keep it going but the cut out speed would determine the final speed

[quote="Victor"]This is as credible as it can get.[quote]

Yes EXACTLY TO THE POINT.

This piece of info is not taken from vkonkate, livejournal etc.
This is an interview with Col general of AIR defense Spec Operation forces in Russia.
This is hard core facts. This was taken 7-8 years ago when S-400 was first entering into
production.
S-400 ZRS is capable of intercepting 3km/sec targets and ofcourse intercepting in near space altitudes.

But altogether we dont know much about the "parameters" of the system.
He also said "increased radius of action" but nothing more.This interviw was in march-april 2007.

Austin wrote:

Viktor wrote:- able to defeat a goals flying 3000m/s at 150km

That would correspond to a target flying at ~ Mach 9  ( I am assuming this is the 40N6 missile )

But we know 48N6 has been advertised as capable of intercepting target flying at 4800 km/sec ( Mach 14 )  at 30 Km.

So as the missile goes higher to intercept does it reduces the ability intercept target at higher speed ?

100 km above would be space so not much of gravity acting on SAM so it does not need massive thrust to keep it going but the cut out speed would determine the final speed

It could be (and this is only my speculation) that we might be facing two 400km range missiles actually:

1. 48N6 which is meant purely for aerodynamic targets with 400km range
2. 40N6 which is meant for "near space" purposes meaning ballistic missiles, high flying hypersonic targets and or perhaps not - aerodynamic targets at 400km range also.

Thing is, what SOC said long time ago, that 48N6 was tested back in 90ies at 400km range and the most important restraining factor at the time for introducing that range within existing S-300 systems was actually the radar itself. With the introduction of few modernized versions of 30N6 and now 92N6 it is possible now to exploit 48N6 range at 400 km distance. In that case 9M82M and 48N6E3 (Russian version - dont know its mark) would have identical range of 400km and serve for similar purposes. 40N6 missile would in that case be a different beast that would expand S-400 capabilities to "near space".

I remember reading article in arms-tass.su few years ago about S-400 which during its testing struck a target at 70km altitude. Now back than 40N6 was not in function as we know and altitude shooting for S-400 is 30km as we know from Almaz-Antej market material for S-400 export versions. I thing that Russian version is a whole different beast than the one marketed and I have read on numerous occasions that Russian Generals are perfectly satisfied with its capabilities. Which brings us to the next topic - the one less speculative but equally important.



More missile and targets guidance channels than S-300 and export version S-400 which the General Yuri Solovyev said about.
First 30N6 versions had ability to guide missiles on only 4 targets which was latter raised to 6 while S-300V had from the start ability to shoot at 6 targets simultaneously.
Meaning that one export version regiment consisting of 6 30N6 can fire at the same time 72 missiles at 36 targets and that is one of the most important reasons why S-300 is feared (most of the older systems could fire only 2 missiles at only one target per battery). With introduction of S-300 that number is upped significantly (besides many other important things - but story is only about guidance channels so we will stick with the subject).
So if we would assume that for instance S-400 is able to fire 20 missiles at 10 targets per battery that would make for a export version regiment (I suspect Russian regiment can support 8 batteries per regiment - but lets take export one of 6 batteries per regiment for the sake of argument) 120 missiles at 60 targets increasing number of targets being shoot at for  fricking 60% and that would be in line with the expected design for the future threats where every new air defense system is expected to successfully repel saturation attacks of the future. Similarly there are rumors that Vityaz (Dark Knight) will be able to guide 16 missile per battery. All this increases in range of missiles, more noise resistance and more guidance channels is exclusively because of cheap electronics easily within the means of Russian Federation as of early 90ies.

Also one important thing that needs to be said - 150-185-200 km range. In the context of shooting down ballistic targets the more altitude will give you more chances to fire at targets again in case some got through - in case of satellites (I very much doubt unless hooked up to an EW which it surely will be). Anyway I think that high flying hypersonic targets are the most important there.

Its possible that 48N6 could indeed have 400 km Range for Aerodynamic Targets as was tested in late 80's and the export version is restricted to 250 km.

The real mystery is 40N6 it took a long time to test and just last year it went into production ... likely this is a new class of missile with two stage and perhaps it could also be a ARH with HTK and Warhead similar to 9M96 series.

The fact that they prefer to hide the missile capability then revel it makes me think they dont want to talk about it till some time , atleast till time a good number of S-400 with 40N6 are in production.

Past statement of General and Air Chief puts the missile i.e 40N6 at range of 400 to 450 km , altitude of 150-185 km and ability to intercept a 3000-3500 class of missile ......how it achieves this goal remains a mystery ....will it be a THAAD like HTK or a 9M96 like HTK + Warhead or will be see the introduction of KKV with this class of missile.

The story of two 400km range missiles of the S-400 system always reminds me of the US Navy AEGIS/SM-2/SM-3 but with more capability.

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/about/press/production/1514.html

The development of the air defense system S-500 is scheduled for completion in 2016 - Russian General Staff

Bulk supply of the troops advanced weapons and technology will begin in 2016, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army Valery Gerasimov.

"To do this in 2015 will be completed development of the new tank, infantry fighting vehicles and armored combat vehicles in 2016 - a promising aviation complex, anti-aircraft missile system S-500 and the corvette, in 2018 - a new generation of destroyers," - said V.Gerasimov at the board meeting of the Defense Ministry in Moscow on Thursday.

He said the work on the creation of these weapons "is currently running without disruption."

Chief of the General Staff said that will increase the equipment of the Armed Forces in 2015 to 30% and in 2020 - up to 70-100%. "To achieve the set parameters designed annual supply of 70 to 100 aircraft and more than 120 helicopters, 8-9, surface ships and submarines and 600 armored vehicles," - said V.Gerasimov.

According to him, along with the supply of new and modernization of existing weapons is provided. "Until 2020, the troops will go more than 2.5 million units of the upgraded weapons and military equipment, which in its basic characteristics will not yield to modern standards," - said V.Gerasimov.

Total 2020 promising and modern weapons, military and special equipment will be retrofitted with more than 400 units and formations.

In addition, said V.Gerasimov planned to increase the serviceability of existing in-service equipment. By 2016, it will be brought in the Army to 85% in the Air Force - up to 80%, while in the Navy - up to 78%. By 2020, the serviceability of the Navy will be up to 85%, said the chief of the General Staff.

First, he noted that this year by industrial contracts are for the entire life cycle of commercially supplied weapons.

The general said that the priorities in the plans for upgrading the strategic nuclear forces, troops of the air and space defense, communications, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, control, and precision-guided weapons systems.

Viktor wrote:Here is interesting summary from Marshall Institute LINK

Rogozin says that "Missile defense is an illusion no matter how much money you invest in it" .

But he doesn't talk about how the S 400 & S 500 working in concert can raise the standard of air defense . This is partly I guess due to the fact that most of the information pertaining to the S 500 is classified .

Another important question is that is there a need for S 400F by 2013 when a  Naval version of S 500 is expected to be fielded in 2016 because both are work in progress.

GarryB wrote:All the S-400s and S-500s in the world wont fix the devastation of the US and Russias arsenal of nukes exploding, nor will it guarantee Russia will be safe from any threat from air or space.

S 400 / S 500 are effective against fighters/bombers as well . Rogozin says that Missile defense guarantees only around 20% defense . What would this figure be against fighters ? > 50% .... at the very least ?

Systems like the S 400 are designed to dominate the high altitude air space . The S 400 will drive enemy aircraft down into a “flak trap” where Pantsir and Buk awaits them . When a 40N6 or 9M96E2 is actually coming at them, pilots will perform a tight turning dive to outmanoeuvre the missile, but this tactic had the undesirable effect of bringing them down again into the range of anti aircraft artillery . This strategy is sound both technically as well as cost wise.

The question that I had was it has repeatedly been said that the S 500 is NOT a replacement for the S 400 . They will operate in tandem . Therefore , what will be their role in air defense when fielded together ?

GarryB wrote:Of course ERA is no guarantee to save the tank crew from a hit but that is no reason not to have it...

Tanks get better protection from APS and countermeasures suites like Shtora . If friendly troops are using an ERA fitted tank to fire on enemy targets , ERA could prove devastating if the tank takes a direct hit from RPG/ATGMs.

GarryB wrote:Really?

Slam Dunk . Abrams tank were fitted with ERA ( under the Urban Tank Survival Kit program) in Iraq and yet suffered unacceptable damages from RPG hits . RPG 29 hits have rendered Merkavas obsolete .

GarryB wrote:AFAIK there are no operational tanks with Shtora at the moment and the only combat tested APS systems are the Russian Drozd in Afghanistan in the 1980s and perhaps a few Israeli systems... have they really proved so invincible that they have led to all countries removing ERA from their tanks?

The Abrams uses the AN/VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasure device . Had ERA been enough was there still a requirement for Arena , Shtora ?

GarryB wrote:Say what? ERA is not devastating... it doesn't even set off nearby plates... most of the time a small hole from the incoming threat is all that shows a hit... the explosion of the anti armour weapon does far more damage than the ERA tile operating. There is force applied to the supporting armour but no flame or fragments and certainly no threat to nearby troops.

Granted that ERA cannot be set off by vibration, impact of small arms rounds, fire, or sympathetic detonation from the detonation of a nearby ERA brick. However, detonation of a brick near the main gun sight may render it inoperative. Detonation also creates a blast and fragmentation risk to close-by infantry or to any exposed crew such as the tank commander.

The collective energy of the ERA explosive, together with the kinetic or explosive energy of the projectile, will repeatedly cause explosive disintegration of the plate. The explosion of an ERA plate generates a considerable amount of shrapnel, and friendly troops in close proximity are therefore in grave danger of fatal injury

Sujoy wrote:S 400 / S 500 are effective against fighters/bombers as well . Rogozin says that Missile defense guarantees only around 20% defense . What would this figure be against fighters ?  > 50%  .... at the very least ?

What does it mean >50%?  

Im not sure you can measure efficiency of the system like that. You can measure it against targets but against whole air forces - what would >50% efficiency represent?

Viktor wrote:What does it mean >50%?  

The chances of intercepting a fighter aircraft is in the vicinity of 50% & a little more with high altitude SAM only .

Viktor wrote:Im not sure you can measure efficiency of the system like that.

Of course it can be measured mate  
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/obamas-proven-missile-interceptor-may-only-succeed-20-percent-time#comments

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

I'll wager that effectiveness of such measurements ............. can be questioned .

Viktor wrote:You can measure it against targets but against whole air forces - what would >50% efficiency represent?

I am NOT measuring against "whole air forces" . That's an unstable variable . It's difficult to find out how many squadrons will be pressed into action .

Sujoy wrote:

Viktor wrote:What does it mean >50%?  

The chances of intercepting a fighter aircraft is in the vicinity of 50% with high altitude SAM only .

Im still not quite sure I follow you on this.

Chances of intercepting a fighter aircraft are much higher than 50% and are declared by producer of the system in question and its specifications are tested / confirmed by Russian Army on Ahuluk.

- Also I dont know on what do you refer when you say "high altitude SAM" since S-300/400 are high and low altitude SAM

Sujoy wrote:
Can be measured .
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/obamas-proven-missile-interceptor-may-only-succeed-20-percent-time#comments

Effectiveness of such measurements can be questioned .

20% against ICBM - LOL  Wouldnt US love to have that?

Viktor wrote: are declared by producer of the system in question and its specifications are tested / confirmed by Russian Army on Ahuluk.

You are referring to the S 300, right  ? Can you provide me with the results so that I can answer your question ? Especially

1) The number of kills produced per round fired, per engagement .
2) Basic LPI capability of the SAM's engagement radar.
3) Deployment of emitting decoys / other countermeasures to defeat geolocation receivers and guided munition seekers
4) Type of aircrafts engaged . This is important because it is essential to figure out if the aircraft was optimized for SEAD operations . If yes, to what extent .

As you would imagine there are other factors as well but the above factors will be at the cornerstone of any study .

Viktor wrote: Also I dont know on what do you refer when you say "high altitude SAM" since S-300/400 are high and low altitude SAM

Am referring to their primary role . In their  secondary role they can target low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles with the 9M82 , 9M83 or 9M96E1 but low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles are generally targeted with AAA. I suspect Vityaz will now be used to intercept cruise missiles & low flying aircrafts.

The Pantsir's 57E6 has an operational range of 12 miles . Beyond that altitude how do you engage a target ? With S 300 & S 400 right  
That's what I meant my high altitude SAM .

With no SAMs deployed in a theatre, the effectiveness of visually aimed and radar directed AAA is poor, as aircraft can attack unhindered from medium and high altitudes, out of the useful envelope of barrelled weapons. The corollary to this is ,  in a SAM rich environment where AAA would be absent, aircraft can attack unhindered from low altitudes, exploiting terrain masking and performance limitations in SAMs and their supporting radar systems. AAA's are also more difficult to kill due to smart use of mobility, camouflage and emission control.

Don't forget on MANPADs, which could be placed everywhere.

Sujoy wrote:

Viktor wrote: are declared by producer of the system in question and its specifications are tested / confirmed by Russian Army on Ahuluk.

You are referring to the S 300, right  ? Can you provide me with the results so that I can answer your question ? Especially

1) The number of kills produced per round fired, per engagement .
2) Basic LPI capability of the SAM's engagement radar.
3) Deployment of emitting decoys / other countermeasures to defeat geolocation receivers and guided munition seekers
4) Type of aircrafts engaged . This is important because it is essential to figure out if the aircraft was optimized for SEAD operations . If yes, to what extent .

As you would imagine there are other factors as well but the above factors will be at the cornerstone of any study .

There is one more important thing you did not mentioned and that is parameter shooting -specially because of the points and reasons you try to make. But thats ok. Thing is that you and me will never know such info. All we can know is the kill probability for fighters, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles etc and than look at the performance of target missiles to get only general idea of what is it all about. Thing is of course that Russia as No.1 in the World in production of air defense makes those shooting exercises more difficult than any other countries by far and with that in mind we are pretty close to out maximum knowledge we may gather over the internet.

Sujoy wrote:

Viktor wrote: Also I dont know on what do you refer when you say "high altitude SAM" since S-300/400 are high and low altitude SAM

Am referring to their primary role . In their  secondary role they can target low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles with the 9M82 , 9M83 or 9M96E1 but low flying aircrafts & cruise missiles are generally targeted with AAA. I suspect Vityaz will now be used to intercept cruise missiles & low flying aircrafts.

All air defense systems are used to defeat low flying targets not just AAA.
Besides where on the earth is still AAA used? Iran/Venezuela/Syria? .....

Sujoy wrote:
The Pantsir's 57E6 has an operational range of 12 miles . Beyond that altitude how do you engage a target ? With S 300 & S 400 right  
That's what I meant my high altitude SAM .

Yes Sujoy, even S-300/400 will engage cruise missiles. Thats why you have ground modeling and whole infrastructure put in place based on that a whole section of air defense defenses no one ever talks about it on the forums.
You have S-300 optimized (with mast added radar systems) for engagement of low flying targets and you have system that is able to shoot targets flying just above the ground. They did not do it for nothing.

Also S-400/S-300PMU2/S-300VM/BUK/TOR/Pancir/Igla/Osa etc are all integrated and command post controls them all. Command post is the single most important thing that increases efficiency of the whole array of systems and every SAM on its own by the factor of 1.5-2. It alone decides, based on radar picture, who will will engage what, with what type of rocket and how many of them, based on its calculations.

So you may look altitude of flying cruise missiles and mast mounted radar and calculate the distance at it can be shoot down. Every system that is part of integrated air defense system contributes in a way that it makes one of many layers, target missile must past in order to reach its target and in that sense S-300 makes one layer just as Pancir-S1 makes another one and so on. The more layers of more capable systems are controlled by more capable command post the harder the defenses are.

Sujoy wrote:With no SAMs deployed in a theatre, the effectiveness of visually aimed and radar directed AAA is poor, as aircraft can attack unhindered from medium and high altitudes, out of the useful envelope of barrelled weapons. The corollary to this is ,  in a SAM rich environment where AAA would be absent, aircraft can attack unhindered from low altitudes, exploiting terrain masking and performance limitations in SAMs and their supporting radar systems. AAA's are also more difficult to kill due to smart use of mobility, camouflage and emission control.

Haha thats not how it works.  

Those are things of the past characteristic for only third world countries with no money and no way to buy modern equipment.

All air defense systems are used to defeat low flying targets not just AAA.
Besides where on the earth is still AAA used? Iran/Venezuela/Syria? .....

Of course all AD systems are used against low flying targets, but long and medium range SAMs have some limitations against low flying targets, that is why you place SHORADs and VSHORADs in wider circle around them and specially MANPADs are useful here, because you could place them anywhere. But positioning them will mostly depend on terrain, where could planes fly low to come undetected as close to your position as possible. In such areas you will station more AAA and MANPADs with portable small radars to cover those shadows of bigger systems.

Many nations still use AAA. Russia still use Shilka, Tunguska and Pantsir as most modern one. Germany make new AAA Mantis and many nations still use Oerlikon or Bofors guns with modern FCS radars as Skyguard, Flycatcher, etc. They will not shot much on planes now, but are still very effective against bombs and missiles.

Viktor wrote:Besides where on the earth is still AAA used? Iran/Venezuela/Syria? .....

Tunguska falls in this category . Also anti aircraft guns are used around Asia including developed states like China( Type 59)and Japan ( Type 87 SPAAG) apart from India , Vietnam , Pakistan among others .

Viktor wrote:Those are things of the past characteristic for only third world countries with no money and no way to buy modern equipment.

You will probably know that if you take Russia , China and to a lesser degree Israel out of the equation very few countries have an effective air defense system in place .

No Viktor , not just third world . Even countries like UK , France have very poor air defense management . The tactics that I described are therefore very relevant in all countries except for Russia and China

Sujoy wrote:

Viktor wrote:Besides where on the earth is still AAA used? Iran/Venezuela/Syria? .....

Tunguska falls in this category . Also anti aircraft guns are used around Asia including developed states like China( Type 59)and Japan ( Type 87 SPAAG) apart from India , Vietnam , Pakistan among others .  

Yes Im aware of their existence  . Thing is Sujoy that with SAMs like Tunguska we are back on the multilayer story again and way is that? Because
even lone S-300 on its own is perfectly able to repel low level attacks and it is able to shoot down targets flying as low as 5m above ground. Of course there will always be other SAM systems in a mixed formation (including AA if there is any) with air wing above their head and many other beautiful things that will totally surprise attacker but its is worth nothing that in case of need S-300 is able to act on its own on low level targets. For that reason you can not call S-300/400 medium and high altitude SAM systems.

Sujoy wrote:No Viktor , not just third world . Even countries like UK , France have very poor air defense management . The tactics that I described are therefore very relevant in all countries except  for Russia and China  

I would not agree with this statement either because although it is true that while EU SAM air defenses are basically non existent they have capable air force that will cover low level approach. So again there will be no AAA guns laying around.

To have credible air defense means to have integrated following three things.

- radar coverage
- air force
- surface to air missiles

To loose (or not to have) any one of those things means severely degrading your ability to withstand air attacks.
I think that the scenario with most similarities to the one you mentioned might be found in Iran, where obsolete S-200 batteries (which is true medium/high altitude system) are guarded with dozens and hundreds of integrated radar guided AAA. Iran has huge air force but is mostly obsolete.

Viktor wrote:I would not agree with this statement either because although it is true that while EU SAM air defenses are basically non existent they have capable air force that will cover low level approach. So again there will be no AAA guns laying around.

To have credible air defense means to have integrated following three things.

- radar coverage
- air force
- surface to air missiles

To have a credible IADS, you need three things:

1. Sensors: radar is obvious, but this can include other detection systems like IR sensors, passive detectors, and so on.

2. Weapons: AAA, SAMs, interceptors...you need some way of stopping people from getting into your airspace.

3. A C3 network: this is what makes the whole thing integrated, providing functions like situational awareness and target deconfliction.

The complexity of the whole system and the individual components depends on the volume of airspace you want control over and the perceived threat. Having, say, a few un-integrated S-75 batteries will get you nowhere. But a few S-300PMU-2 batteries coupled with a battle management radar system capable of talking to the overall EW network makes things a whole lot different. Or, if you're someone like South Africa, where the threat picture is really pretty benign, having an EW network coupled with a few Gripens will work just fine. Everybody does not need the same level of IADS complexity. It is, however, possible to have nice assets and yet use them in an unintelligent fashion to not get the most out of the entire network.

Yes. we said the same thing but in different order.
At the very beginning I said that all mentioned three things needs to be integrated.

With the rest, I agree. Every country for itself evaluates threat level and based on that analysis designs their own air defense.

SOC wrote:3.  A C3 network:  this is what makes the whole thing integrated, providing functions like situational awareness and target deconfliction.

And target distribution - most important.  

Viktor wrote: but its is worth nothing that in case of need S-300 is able to act on its own on low level targets. For that reason you can not call S-300/400 medium and high altitude SAM systems.

I know and like I said in my earlier post that low flying aircrafts / missiles will be engaged with the 9M82 , 9M83 or 9M96E1 missiles of the S 300 .I am not questioning the capability of the 9M82 , 9M83 or 9M96E1 missiles .

What I am saying is low flying objects are better tackled with Pantsir , V/ESHORADS .

S 300 / S 400 will be placed in close proximity to strategic installations . Let's say the Kremlin .

Say a hostile missile is approaching the Kremlin at low altitude . Do you use the S 300 / S 400 or do you use your Pantsirs and VSHORADS ? The warhead on the S 300 missile is approximately 140 kgs . The warhead on the cruise missile will weigh approximately 400kgs . When two such missiles collide at such high speeds at low altitude the combined force of the blast will cause a great deal of damage on the ground . That's why you use a smaller missile like the 57E6 or 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns . By doing this you ensure that you are only dealing with a 400 kg hostile warhead . Destroying the warhead aboard an ICBM is different from simply destroying the launch vehicle.

Not to mention the cost issue . The system should have a cost-exchange advantage at the margin in the worst case; that is to say, the unit of defense must always be cheaper than whatever the offense could do at the margin, so that the attacker could not possibly scale his way out of the challenge posed to the attacker by the defender.

Viktor wrote:while EU SAM air defenses are basically non existent they have capable air force that will cover low level approach

The greatest advantage of aircraft-based AEW/ Interceptor systems is also the source of their greatest limitation for sustained cruise missile defense, especially for the homeland. They are few in number and have high procurement and operating costs. They require bases and infrastructure which add to those costs.While front-line combat aircraft are profoundly capable assets, they are not optimal resources on which to base an effective and cost-effective continuous defense against cruise / ballistic missiles. Fighters are expensive to operate and maintain and have very limited on-station endurance, regardless of whether they are based on land or aircraft carriers.

Further, interception times and basing locations may not permit the timely interception of cruise missiles on short notice as might well be the result of surprise launches of cruise missiles from offshore cargo ships or submarines. Combat aircraft are best employed in in-theater warfighting, which is their primary function.